If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

daniel, if those halls that you are hob-nobbing in contain both basic science researchers as well as clinical researchers, then you are probably aware of the tension that exists between them and their respective endeavors.

i came through a similar institution and haved earned both types of degrees, and i am familar with the criticism from basic science community that is often directed toward the clinical community regarding the 'excellence' of their science.

i believe that randy has uniquely positioned himself between academia and the real world. he is striving for applied or practical (clinical) knowledge, while factoring in the basic science.

there is nothing 'laid back' about what he is doing.

and unless i am a total fool, i don't see how anyone can suggest that randy is involved in some kind of propaganda campaign as javin appears to do in his post.

it is interesting to see the back and forth on bee-l between randy and others who are more knowledgable than i on this subject. i do hope that javin will bring his criticisms to that forum and allow randy to respond.

jmho

Last edited by squarepeg; 03-23-2013 at 10:01 AM.
Reason: sp

journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by Daniel Y

Science and it's reports are not for general public consumption. Most of it requires a degree to even understand. You have to study the reports not just read them.

I would agree 100% here. I would also say you may have a doctorate degree but you probably rely on a carpenter, electrician, and plumber to build your house. These people rely on you to simplify what a research paper is actually claiming. Most beekeepers including myself would rely on the same thing.
Dealing with the FDA in my carrier I am not willing to put them is the same category as the DMV or Welfare department. My experience is that they were very intelligent and took their jobs seriously. Admittedly, I may not have agreed with many of their findings because they are black and white.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Religions (and cults) always run more smoothly when "the people" have to have the holy books read or interpreted by the priests.....at least it runs more smoothly for the priests!

deknow

all too true dean.

too bad for the religous (quasi government) establishment that gutenberg invented the printing press and the lay community was able to read the bible for themselves. although it did take a few generations for the reformation to take place.

in that case there was a motive, i.e. control of the masses.

i am neither copping out of the task of doing my own homework, nor live in fear that i am being manipulated by allowing randy's distillation of the studies guide my thinking on the subject.

what possible motive would he have for trying to deceive the beekeeping community?

journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

i am neither copping out of the task of doing my own homework, nor live in fear that i am being manipulated by allowing randy's distillation of the studies guide my thinking on the subject.

If you understood both arguments (Randy's and Javilin's), you wouldn't need to watch them duke it out...you would have your own opinion.
If you didn't understand both arguments, but were trying to understand them, you would have questions.
If you don't want to bother with the details, you can put them both in the ring and watch them fight....but until you understand their arguments, you have no way to know who is winning the fight.
None of these things are particularly hard to read. If you quote something in order to make a point, you ought to understand it.

what possible motive would he have for trying to deceive the beekeeping community?

There are tons of "possible" motives...the most obvious is that he is not trying to deceive anyone...but that doesn't mean he is right....and it doesn't mean he is wrong...but you will never know unless you read what he is writing critically, and follow up with some of the references. One can be wrong without trying to be deceitful. One can be deceitful in the persuit of money, ego, security, recognition, etc.

deknow

"Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them."Neil Tyson

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by Daniel Y

So over their is the EPA. and they all know that for a product to be approved the manufacturer bust do this that and the other thing. or they can, by the rules file for an exemption. They do not care that an exemption exists. or if it is abused or if it is used in accordance with it's intent. it exists and it can in fact be used. it is the rules. rules made by someone else somewhere else.

Now beekeepers come along ans say, Hey you are not using this exemption the way it was intended to be used. the EPA reads the rules and says "Ho so" the rules are right here and we are following them. The beekeepers say but it is not protecting us when you use it that way. The EPA says sorry but those are the rules. Now the beekeeprs are taking the EPA to court so that a judge can tell them how the rule works. and that is about all that is happening. And whatever the judge says is how the EPA will treat the rule in the future. There is noone anywhere even remotely associated with the EPA that really gives a dry crusty turd about weather Bayer makes money. beekeepers keep bees or anything else. What they care is that there cabinets are all nicely filled with all the proper paperwork. And as of right now according to their files they have done nothing wrong. never have. If tomorrow the rules change so will the paperwork. and they could care less if even one bee survives as a result. They could not care less if Bayer goes belly up as a result. Nobody is beign bought. no corruption is goign on. it is just your standard every day government managment.

So you all may wonder how the EPA could fail to protect beekeepers. My question is more like how can they ever succeed.

These are the same people who approve the miticides we use in our hives. Do you really want to get on their bad side?

Billions of dollars generated by growers of corn and other crops and people think that anybody is going to listen to or side w/ the bastard orphan child of agriculture?

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

If you understood both arguments (Randy's and Javilin's), you wouldn't need to watch them duke it out...you would have your own opinion.

I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.

But when you get over there you better strap it on. They take no prisoners over there.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by camero7

I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.

What are you talking about? Randy's comments are "published" on his website for mass consumption, and mass criticism..
Everyone is much more likely to be able to "respond" here on beesource where the moderation is minimal. At least in the past, Bee-l has had quasi official "no bothering the researchers" policy, and everything is moderated. I've been involved in these first hand, and can cite specific examples if you like.
But if you publish something....especially if you are calling it science, you have to expect that it will be critiqued...that goes with the territory of speaking out.
There is less preventing an open discussion/debate here than there is no Bee-l...why should bee-l be the "official" venue? Remember, the quotes in question came from Randy's website, not a bee-l post.
All of this is public and in the open....and no one in the discussion is being moderated.
If you do understand the arguments, there is little interesting that could come of a debate...unless you only think you understand the arguments...in which case some reading is in order!

deknow

"Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them."Neil Tyson

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.

Virtually anyone can see eggs if they work to find appropriate lighting/magnification. Anyone can keep a smoker lit...if they try and learn from their own mistakes and the success of others.

If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying. If you aren't trying, I'm not sure what the point of discussing it is.

deknow

"Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them."Neil Tyson

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

well Dean, I've not been censored on Bee-L and I see lots of dissension over there. And, of course, one could take Randy on by email. But there is a lot of back stabbing on this forum that is tiresome and solves nothing. If I had a beef with Randy, I'd post on Bee-L and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't take shots at him on this site that he doesn't monitor or post on. Remember how Beesource came to be in the first place.Just saying.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by camero7

I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.

But when you get over there you better strap it on. They take no prisoners over there.

What gets tiresome is other people (in this case you) dropping other people's names and quoting the "studies" that the other people have found. Then when I point out how those studies are totally trash, not a single person actually rebuts my points, but rather says that now I'm back-stabbing people by responding to your post in the forum it was presented in. Do your own research or don't. I don't care. I've pointed out the flaws in your argument, and have no intention of "going to war" with another group of fanboys on another forum. I'm not here to "duke it out" for anyone's education or amusement. I pointed out glaring flaws in the argument, and if you choose to ignore them, that's your choice. You posted the argument here, I responded to it here. I'm not going to be diverted to another site because you don't like that your sources seem to be weak. I don't have a "beef with Randy." I don't have a "beef" with anyone. You dropped Randy's name into this conversation, then started quoting studies. I showed how the studies are trash, or unrelated to the context of the argument. Simple as that.

Then there's the whole, "I can't be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC" argument. Give me a break. If I can be bothered to look up EVERY study that was quoted in your post, then certainly you can be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC (which, by the way, WERE actually real, randomized studies with controls that showed that even at low doses of neonicotinoids, up to 94% of the hives "collapsed" mirroring the symptoms of CCD - unlike ANY of the studies quoted by you.) But I'm done with this argument as clearly, that's is all it is. It's not a debate when you attack me instead of the points I've made.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

To everyone, let's keep the comparing of different discussion groups out of the conversation please. I don't think it does any good to pit the various forums against each other. If someone is going to bring into the discussion here, something that someone said in another group, then it should be perfectly acceptable for members to reply to it here.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by Javin007

Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD, (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...dies-find?lite) I have to seriously, seriously question whether or not one Mr. Randy Oliver doesn't have a reason for his incredible bias.

Then there's the whole, "I can't be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC" argument. Give me a break. If I can be bothered to look up EVERY study that was quoted in your post, then certainly you can be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC (which, by the way, WERE actually real, randomized studies with controls that showed that even at low doses of neonicotinoids, up to 94% of the hives "collapsed" mirroring the symptoms of CCD - unlike ANY of the studies quoted by you.) But I'm done with this argument as clearly, that's is all it is. It's not a debate when you attack me instead of the points I've made.

The two studies mentioned in this article are the Henry et al and the Whitehorn et al published in April 2012

The Whitehorn study looks at bumble bees rather than honey bees.
Neither looks at CCD.
The nbcnews link actually mixes up the two studies and claims that the French study (Henry et al) looked at bumble bees and Whitehorn et al looked at Honeybees when in fact it is the other way round.
Such a long post and such a lot of inaccuracy in it.
Nothing but an unsubstantiated smear on randy Oliver.

It did nothing of the sort.
It fed bees Imidacloprid in corn syrup at massive doses and killed the colonies which proves that insecticide kills insects. no more no less.
The other factor is that corn grown in the US is not treated with Imidacloprid, it is treated with Clothianidin so the study claimed that Imidacloprid in corn syrup causes CCD even though there is no Imidacloprid in corn syrup.

This study could be held up as an example of one of the most flawed pieces of research ever conducted.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by deknow

I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.

I can't see eggs without a lot of magnification. Eyesight is a limitation. Keeping a smoker lit is more of a learned skill. One has a chance of improving over time and one usually doesn't. Most magnification devices reduce the focal point to a point that is too close or even inside the veil. I have learned that seeing eggs is not necessary for beekeeping and I never had an issue with keeping my smoker lit.

If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying.

Maybe you would like to discuss what difference it makes where you drill a hole in a beam. If you haven't studied the subject you may never understand why it makes a difference no matter how much you try to understand it.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Nice post Jonathan. I'm still trying to wrap my head why Monsanto gets mentioned in a Neonic thread... Just shows how confused people are on the subject. One other trend I see is people always link Neonics to GMO's which is pure folly. A lot of non gmo's are treated as well so people need to realize that as well. I for one would just like to see a meaningful study done and maybe Bayer funding some independent research done by 3rd parties.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by Javin007

The Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Europe "studies" were nothing more than studies to see if enough pesticides had accumulated in the hives to be testable. None of those "studies" had any intention of showing any link to colony collapse, and if anything are being used completely out of context in order to "prove" that there's "no evidence."

This is the 4 year German Study (Genersch et al)

Abstract – The Western honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the most important animal pollinator in agriculture
worldwide providing more than 90% of the commercial pollination services. Due to the development in
agriculture the demands for honey bee pollination are steadily increasing stressing the pollination capacity
of the global managed honey bee population. Hence, the long-term decline of managed honey bee hives in
Europe and North-America is of great concern and stimulated intensive research into the possible factors
presumably causing honey bee colony collapse. We here present a four-year study involving more than
1200 bee colonies from about 120 apiaries which were monitored for the entire study period. Bee samples
were collected twice a year to analyze various pathogenic factors including the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor,
fungi (Nosema spec., Ascosphaera apis), the bacterium Paenibacillus larvae, and several viruses.
Data on environmental factors, beekeeping management practice, and pesticides were also collected. All
data were statistically analyzed in respect to the overwintering mortality of the colonies. We can demonstrate
for several factors that they are significantly related to the observed winter losses of the monitored
honey bee colonies: (i) high varroa infestation level, (ii) infection with deformed wing virus (DWV) and
acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) in autumn, (iii) queen age, and (iv) weakness of the colonies in autumn.
No effects could be observed for Nosema spec. or pesticides. The implications of these findings will be
discussed.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by jonathan

The two studies mentioned in this article are the Henry et al and the Whitehorn et al published in April 2012

The Whitehorn study looks at bumble bees rather than honey bees.
Neither looks at CCD.
The nbcnews link actually mixes up the two studies and claims that the French study (Henry et al) looked at bumble bees and Whitehorn et al looked at Honeybees when in fact it is the other way round.
Such a long post and such a lot of inaccuracy in it.
Nothing but an unsubstantiated smear on randy Oliver.

It did nothing of the sort.
It fed bees Imidacloprid in corn syrup at massive doses and killed the colonies which proves that insecticide kills insects. no more no less.
The other factor is that corn grown in the US is not treated with Imidacloprid, it is treated with Clothianidin so the study claimed that Imidacloprid in corn syrup causes CCD even though there is no Imidacloprid in corn syrup.

This study could be held up as an example of one of the most flawed pieces of research ever conducted.

Do some basic research if you intend to throw mud.

I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.

Re: Beekeepers suing EPA

Originally Posted by jonathan

This is the 4 year German Study (Genersch et al)

I don't follow your line of thinking? We're discussing the theory that CCD is caused by a number of factors, one of the biggest being neonicotinoids. Neither CCD nor neonicotinoids are addressed in that study?